Hudson v. West’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 38 U.S.C. § 7105 · 38 U.S.C. § 7251
Relies on Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · Calderon v. Thompson · Kutscherousky v. West · Cox v. West · Sargent v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“since it did not have actual jurisdiction over ... the underlying action in this EAJA application, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the EAJA application itself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“award EAJA fees unless it had jurisdiction to award the relief requested during the merits litigation,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hudson v. Principi
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.